Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Validity in Evaluation Research

A Critical Assessment of Current Issues

Bibliographic Data

ID6326929
AuthorsHuey-Tsyh Chen (University of Akron, corresponding author)
Year1988
Volume16
Issue1
Pages1-16
Publication date1988-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolicy & Politics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0305-5736 • E-ISSN: 1470-8442
PublisherBristol University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1332/030557388782455082
OpenAlexW2038044911
LanguageEN
Citations received5

This article reviews current major methods of ensuring validity in evaluation research. In reviewing rationales advanced for the primacy of the experimental paradigm, I argue that the use of randomized experiments in program evaluation may not be as powerful as its advocates claim. Furthermore, the rigidity of the randomized experimental design may emphasize internal validity at the expense of other types of validity. Especially important, I argue, is that evaluations based on experimental paradigms tend not to yield information useful to policy makers. Various quasi-experiments have been considered inferior to randomized experiments in internal validity by Campbell and Stanley. However, due to later developments of sophisticated methods as ARIMA models and modelling selection bias, the gap between randomized experiments and quasi-experiments in dealing with internal validity has narrowed. Furthermore, quasi-experiments also have other advantages such as unobtrusiveness and greater applicability to the evaluation of human services programs. Current approaches to validity tend to be a single-validity oriented approach; that is, they tend to achieve one type of validity at the expense of others. I propose a theory-driven approach that attempts to provide a more balanced view. The emphasis of this approach is to stress the incorporation of formal models or theory into program evaluation, thereby articulating clearly the identified potential threats to validity in a research. The theory-driven approach can and should deal with internal, external, construct, and statistical conclusion validity simultaneously

Cognitive psychology · Concurrent validity · Construct (python library · Construct validity · Criterion validity · Economics · External validity · Incremental validity · Internal validity · Management science · Predictive validity · Psychometrics · Randomized experiment · Statistics · Validity · Computer Science · Evaluation and Performance Assessment · Mathematics · Psychology · Social Psychology

  • Evaluation Von Programmen und Projekten Für eine Demokratische Kultur

    Rainer Strobl, Olaf Lobermeier et al.•Evaluation Von Programmen und…•2012

  • Issues in Waterfront Regeneration

    Andrew Jones•Planning Practice and Research•1998

  • Towards a Framework for the Evaluation of Health-related Policies in Cities

    Open Access•Caroline Costongs, Jane Springett•Evaluation•1997

  • Psychology and the Art of Programme Evaluation

    Open Access•Charles Potter•South African Journal of Psychology•2006

  • No Hiding Place

    Open Access•Christopher Pollitt, Stephen Harrison et al.•Journal of Social Policy•1990

Unique citing works5
Citations per year0,14
Citation span1990 - 2012 (23)
Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 5

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae